On course

The move by the House of Representatives to tackle frontally the challenge of weak and ineffective financial controls in our public finance system is certainly overdue. Here we refer to the planned amendment of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) under which the House seeks to make funding for the office of the Auditor-General of the Federation (AGF), a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federal Government.

The rationale, according to the lawmakers, is to secure the financial autonomy for the office charged with curbing the financial excesses of ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of the Federal Government. The lawmakers also believe that this would address the issue of paltry allocation to the office in the budget, which continues to limit its ability to carry out its mandate. A good illustration is the statement credited to the auditor general, Samuel Ukura, saying that the agency could not audit the accounts of 97 foreign missions in the 2012 budget year because there was no money for his office to work. In the 2013 budget, the sum of N892milion was proposed for the office to audit the accounts of close to 600 MDAs.

We share in the broad objective of weaning the office off its dependence on the finance ministry and the Budget Office. As it is, the nation has long moved beyond the debate on the need for independence for a critical office like that of the auditor-general. The challenge has always been how to ensure that the institution, as indeed similar ones, have the wherewithal to carry out their jobs and in an unfettered atmosphere.

Financial autonomy is however only one step in the long journey to improved service delivery. Clearly, the time has come for the National Assembly to look into the books to see how, in addition to the proposed financial autonomy, the operational capacity of the office can be further enhanced. We consider that also key to the whole effort to reposition the office.

The move by the lawmakers has itself thrown up some related constitutional issues deserving no less attention; these relate to the structure and nomenclature of some of the Federal Government’s agencies, as these have implications for our current practice of federalism.

A good example is the office of the AGF itself; ordinarily, the correct appellation ought to be Auditor-General of the Federal Government since its mandate covers only the accounts of the Federal Government and its agencies. The same is also true of the offices of the accountant-general and the Attorney-General of the Federation which should be properly designated as those of the Federal Government.

Of course, the former is without prejudice to the demand for the separation of the office of Accountant-General of the Federal Government from that of the Federation Account. The current situation in which the Federal Government appointee doubles as both the chief accountant to the Federal Government while superintending the federation account is not only far from equitable but also absurd.

We also urge the National Assembly to take another look at the strident clamour for the separation of the attorney-general’s office from that of the minister of justice. We see great merits in the arguments that the two offices be separated. Indeed, our prescription is that the attorney-general – be it Federal Government or states – as the foremost defender of the public in the matters of law and public policy, should be insulated from the topsy-turvy of executive politics. That done, the minister of justice could then be left with the roles of being the administrative head of justice ministry as well as legal adviser to the Federal Government or the states – as the case might be.